There's every reason to believe that the easiest path for video encoders is to simply serve their H.264 content in a Flash wrapper to clients that don't have H.264 straight up.

Video sites are already re-encoding videos into multiple formats.

Quote:

Why would they go through the trouble of re-encoding huge libraries when Google's patently self serving embrace of "open standards" allows them to continue to use Flash?

They can keep using Flash while the transition to WebM is still going on. But it will be in their interest to support native video in browsers. And they can just re-encode to WebM instead of h264.

Quote:

If Google had announced they were dropping support of Flash in the interest of openness I would be extremely impressed.

That would be quite silly. Video on the web today is basically Flash. If you don't support Flash, you are not going to keep your users.

Quote:

As it is-- dropping the ubiquitous, well performing and ratified standard but keeping the ubiquitous, poorly performing and proprietary format, claiming that ubiquity on the one hand requires support but that on the other does not-- I call bullshit.

No, the bullshit here is entirely yours. H264 is incompatible with the open web, and WebM is not proprietary. I know you hate Google and desperately want to defend Apple, but stop the lies now, please.

I have read w3c patent policy.
I wasn't able to find any single occurrence of the words "open standard".And guess what? I bet you know.
W3C define his standards (as ISO* do) and if someone wants to submit technology to w3c that technology must be "royalty free".*

If mpeg-la sues google over WebM, WebM is not eligible for w3c submission, right?

What about improvements?
Google states "If there are significant improvements to warrant a new revision we might adopt them, but only after careful consideration and after discussing suggested changes with the WebM community". What does it means here "after discussing"? Anything different from "everyone speaks, google decides"? Who has decisional rights in WebM "community" (not "project")? Who will vote?

Have you some more doubts about openness? Read the License agreement for Contributors to WebM project:http://code.google.com/intl/it-IT/le...-cla-v1.0.html
"You [contributors] hereby grant to Google and to recipients of software distributed by Google a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works."
If i don't make mistakes, this means that contributors confer their IP to Google (not to "WebM project") and implicitly give faculty of distribution to Google (not to "WebM project").
"WebM project" seems not an independent board like ISO, but a project firmly owned by Google.

Google does his own interest, as Apple does, and now advantages Adobe Flash.

Nor Google is good, nor Apple is evil. But Google makes his money mostly from advertisers; Microsoft from OEMs; Apple from users.

An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process). There is no single definition and interpretations do vary with usage.

The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage. There are number of definitions of open standards which emphasize different aspects of openness, including of the resulting specification, the openness of the drafting process, and the ownership of rights in the standard. The term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.

The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand, South African and the Venezuelan governments. On the standard organisation side, the W3C ensures that its specifications can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.

Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T permittheir standards to contain specifications whose implementation will require payment of patent licensing fees. Among these organizations, only the IETF and ITU-T explicitly refer to their standards as "open standards", while the others refer only to producing "standards". The IETF and ITU-T use definitions of "open standard" that allow "reasonable and non-discriminatory" patent licensing fee requirements.

Will Chrome continue supporting the GIF/Jpeg image formats? Did they work out a deal with Unisys/Compuserve or whoever owns them?

Excellent point. The gif patents have expired now, but this shows that it was a huge mistake to not require a baseline codec for html5 video. There should be a baseline format which is open and free, to avoid proprietary technologies from taking over. Like h264 was threatening to take over, and close video on the web.

Ya' know... I've read your last 30, or so, posts -- and you just keep repeating the same arbitrary, unsupported statements.

On the contrary, I have consistently pointed to well known definitions and exposed the amazing hypocrisy of the Apple fanboy brigade.

Quote:

You never address the challenges to your assertions. Many of these challenges are made by members who have reputations for fairness, sound reasoning and willingness to evaluate all points presented.

Nonsense. I have addressed every single issue I have come across.

Quote:

You are not contributing to the discussion.

On the contrary, I am correcting blatant lies, such as WebM being proprietary and h264 being an open standard.

Quote:

If you can prove that h.264 is not a de facto standard -- let's see/hear it.

I never said h264 isn't a standard. It's a standard alright. I'm pointing out that it is not an open standard. The W3C requires open web standards to be royalty-free. In fact, even Microsoft of all companies agrees that open standards are royalty-free.

Whenever a discussion on AI involves Apple and Google on different sides of an issue -- the forum seems to be monopolized by a tag team of anti-Apple posters, who seem to play off each other's posts.

Now you are just getting pathetic. I haven't been anti-Apple at all. Just because I point out your blatant fanboyism and hypocrisy doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple. Do you represent Apple?

Quote:

This happens so predictably that it is hard to believe that it is not orchastrated.

Oh no! Two people disagree with you, therefore they are organized!

Quote:

What I don't understand is what the Apple haters hope to accomplish -- at best they make AI a more popular site, at worst they look pretty stupid vis a vis a reasonable discussion, while doing nothing to advance their agenda.

So what you are saying is that users of Apple products cannot possibly argue in favor of an open web? Amazing.

Have you some more doubts about openness? Read the License agreement for Contributors to WebM project:http://code.google.com/intl/it-IT/le...-cla-v1.0.html
"You [contributors] hereby grant to Google and to recipients of software distributed by Google a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works."
If i don't make mistakes, this means that contributors confer their IP to Google (not to "WebM project") and implicitly give faculty of distribution to Google (not to "WebM project").
"WebM project" seems not an independent board like ISO, but a project firmly owned by Google.

Nope. WebM is an open-source project sponsored by Google and others. Google gave out an irrevocable unlimited license for WebM. They have made sure they can never make any sorts of claims about patents or anything like that against WebM. They can never take ownership again.

Yes, I do. We are talking about open web. H.264 can't be considered open in the context of open web because it is patent-encumbered.

This was said already, and this is why Firefox and others can't use it.

Complete bullshit. It can and is open in the context or the "open web", it just isn't free. You keep saying you understand the difference between free and open, but you keep demonstrating that you don't.

Firefox isn't using it because they are suffering from the same delusions and misguided desire for ideological purity as you. There is nothing stopping Firefox from using it but stubbornness.

Nope. WebM is an open-source project sponsored by Google and others. Google gave out an irrevocable unlimited license for WebM. They have made sure they can never make any sorts of claims about patents or anything like that against WebM. They can never take ownership again.

What about future development? Google and google alone decides what happens as it relates to it's codec and others can submit things in the hopes that google will include it in it's codec? That's not open. That's a deal breaker. It's not like HTML 5 at all where a large group of people decide the fate of HTML5. Google should submit WebM to the w3c. Did you even read the link that's from google's own website?

I really shouldn't be replying to a bunch of fan___s (this is a biased-towards-Apple forum, after all), but I feel like I should step in and mention this:

DON'T debate about video standards and the such unless you have created one yourself that is patent free and can have high bitrates with low sizes.

DON'T debate about "open" unless you are a lawyer, understand the implications of not "open" and pluses of "open", and understand that "open" is NOT necessarily royalty free.

To interject my opinion - I like how they're ditching H.264, but hate how they think WebM is a good replacement for it. OGG is worse. If at all, they should be grouping their best mathematicians and create a codec, like a mini codec project from FFMPEG (which, needless to say, seems to be dead).

i will make it simple for you: show us exactly where we can find who determines the 'accepted definition' and what this accepted definition is? web link? page in a dictionary?

Seriously, you're going to play the fool with us? An open standard is one which is available for anyone to implement. It doesn't have to be free to be considered an open standard. This is pretty much the commonly accepted definition for probably longer than you have been alive.

... They can keep using Flash while the transition to WebM is still going on. But it will be in their interest to support native video in browsers. And they can just re-encode to WebM instead of h264.

Why would they since H.264 already works fine with Flash? More importantly, why should they have to just so Google can control video on the Web?

Quote:

Originally Posted by insike

No, the bullshit here is entirely yours. H264 is incompatible with the open web, and WebM is not proprietary. I know you hate Google and desperately want to defend Apple, but stop the lies now, please.

Are you just here to troll? A shill who's not very skilled? Just not really much to say?

You keep repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over again. Repeating it doesn't make it true, and it isn't true. H.264 is the open video standard. WebM is a proprietary codec controlled by Google that has nothing open about it. H.264 fosters the open Web, not Google's proprietary codec, any more than Flash does.

So, you quote me as indicating that they aren't trying to control the web, just behaving stupidly, then ask me to explain how they are trying to control the web? Who's behaving stupidly now?

You said Google is trying to control the web with WebM. Tell me how Firefox and Opera, which supported WebM long before Chrome announced they were going to drop proprietary codecs, are trying to control the web with their WebM support. I bet they understand about codecs and codec licenses way better than you do, but maybe you have a nice conspiracy theory to explain it?

You said Google is trying to control the web with WebM. Tell me how Firefox and Opera, which supported WebM long before Chrome announced they were going to drop proprietary codecs, are trying to control the web with their WebM support. I bet they understand about codecs and codec licenses way better than you do, but maybe you have a nice conspiracy theory to explain it?

I think he's referring to the fact that Google and Google alone can make changes to the final code. It's not a standards body like say the w3c. I think Google should've given WebM so a number of vested interests could have a fair say in the WebM standard.

I really shouldn't be replying to a bunch of fan___s (this is a biased-towards-Apple forum, after all), but I feel like I should step in and mention this:

DON'T debate about video standards and the such unless you have created one yourself that is patent free and can have high bitrates with low sizes.

DON'T debate about "open" unless you are a lawyer, understand the implications of not "open" and pluses of "open", and understand that "open" is NOT necessarily royalty free.

To interject my opinion - I like how they're ditching H.264, but hate how they think WebM is a good replacement for it. OGG is worse. If at all, they should be grouping their best mathematicians and create a codec, like a mini codec project from FFMPEG (which, needless to say, seems to be dead).

I agree with most of what you say -- except I don't like how Google is trying to ditch h.264 -- proven to be the best available codec.

I followed your link on snow. Rather than doing a web alamende left, could you help define snow? What are the advantages of snow? How does snow compare to h.264 accuracy/performance/fps/bandwidth/ file size? When will snow be available for general use?

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

What about future development? Google and google alone decides what happens as it relates to it's codec and others can submit things in the hopes that google will include it in it's codec? That's not open. That's a deal breaker. It's not like HTML 5 at all where a large group of people decide the fate of HTML5. Google should submit WebM to the w3c. Did you even read the link that's from google's own website?

then i guess you disapprove of practically every single software company, group, etc. basically anyone with a project.
the difference is you are free to fork the code and go your own way anytime you like. you can do this with webm, android, chromium, chrome os and many more projects out there.

I agree with most of what you say -- except I don't like how Google is trying to ditch h.264 -- proven to be the best available codec.

I followed your link on snow. Rather than doing a web alamende left, could you help define snow? What are the advantages of snow? How does snow compare to h.264 accuracy/performance/fps/bandwidth/ file size? When will snow be available for general use?

FINALLY, AN INTELLIGENT REPLY! This forum barely has any, which is why I'm quite surprised.

Well, as long as you're not liking the idea of ditching H.264 because Apple's supporting it, I'm fine with your point of view there. I just support because of the promotion of open, royalty-free standards. (Which is impossible because of WebM's nature, but it's one more browser.) It still doesn't make any sense for this suicidal move... but oh well.

Back to your reply - Snow is/was an experimental codec from FFMPEG, a well know swiss knife encoder.
Going into nitty-gritty details, it's a wavelet codec. The most famous (if you lower the standard of famous) is Dirac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_%...sion_format%29), which is another wavelet codec developed by BBC, potentially for their own use. (Yes, the British BBC.)
Going back to the real world, some testing shows that it performs much better* than x.264** - good compression (more clarity for the size). FPS? If you're talking about encoding it, that I don't know. You'll have to pick up a copy of ffmpeg and encode a Snow video yourself.

Accuracy/bandwidth/file size is what I've just answered above - it does pretty well, if not better, than x.264.

Performance? That's also for you to figure out. It certainly is NOT a massive hardware supported codec, due to the fact that no one has even heard of it.

Finally - it's available for "general" use, if you download FFMPEG and run it with the proper commands/args - but it's not popular, and it's very much hidden away, since the project kind of died. So it depends on what you mean "general". It's still beta, last time I checked.

I wish there was a massive corporate movement to gather all the smart mathematicians, as well as lawyers, and let them create a patent free efficient codec that we can all use. That way, there would be no need for silly debating, and HTML5 might actually become reality (believe me, as a web developer and video editor, the future looks dim for HTML5).

I'd prefer to continue this discussion over PM/email/IM, since this forum isn't exactly the best place to discuss.

*Do note that the tests were performed a long time ago, and that x.264 could have been improved substantially. You are on your own to benchmark them, both visually and quantitatively.
** I use x.264 as a reference instead of H.264. They essentially are the same codec, but x.264 is an encoder of H.264, and has been known to be very good at compressing H.264. (Efficient, fast - you name it!)

then i guess you disapprove of practically every single software company, group, etc. basically anyone with a project.
the difference is you are free to fork the code and go your own way anytime you like. you can do this with webm, android, chromium, chrome os and many more projects out there.

Actually, many people prefer to pay for things as they have assurance of quality, support, enhancements and a recourse if the product claims are not fulfilled.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

then i guess you disapprove of practically every single software company, group, etc. basically anyone with a project.
the difference is you are free to fork the code and go your own way anytime you like. you can do this with webm, android, chromium, chrome os and many more projects out there.

The post was neither approving nor disapproving. It was merely explaining why WebM is a proprietary rather than open standard. Google is the proprietor. Sure, you can access the source code and make changes should you so desire, but as you say if you wish to change the fundamental spec, you have to either debate with Google (the proprietor) and get them to agree, or you can fork the source. But if you fork, what you're working on isn't WebM any more, is it?

then i guess you disapprove of practically every single software company, group, etc. basically anyone with a project.
the difference is you are free to fork the code and go your own way anytime you like. you can do this with webm, android, chromium, chrome os and many more projects out there.

Read the post again.

We are talking about HTML5 here...and standards. HTML5 standards have the say of everyone. WebM has the say of Google. Thank you for your input even though it didn't address my concern.

Yup, looks like we're all going in reverse. From good GPUs to rubbish BundleGate nonsense GPUs in Intel CPUs.

From H.264 (and remarkable progress in x264) back to... (eww) Ogg (even the name sucks!)

Regarding your point, DED obviously has a one-track mind but in this case his point is valid. Google is taking something that infringes patents and then "opens" it which means basically spreading the liability to others. Android is clearly as I mention a copy of iOS in many, many ways but what liability have they had to bear so far? Additionally, the point remains. No matter how free, open and wonderful WebM is now, to improve the codec (which I assume one would want) there is no way you won't step on the prior art of H.264 developers which have made some of the best strides in video compression in the history of computing.

If there is any "evilness" to H.264 that is where Google should try and settle their differences by negotiating better licensing, lower royalties, whatever. Not by these increasingly Microsoftian moves.

WebM is clearly just cannon fodder in whatever war Google thinks it is waging... It will slow down H.264 but in the long run I can't see it becoming dominant.

I don't think it will slow H.264 at all, I think it will simply drive more people away from Chrome & towards IE & Safari, or in the least towards quicktime or Window Media Player (assuming Microsoft builds support for H.264 into WMP). A lot of people were absolutely convinced that HD-DVD would win out over Blu-ray because it was cheaper but in the end technical superiority won out.

H.264 has been optimized in chips for quite some time now & GPU accelerated not only can't perform as well but also will eat up more battery. I also don't believe Google has nearly enough support from the open-source community, I believe most of them prefer x264 and that too many of them see Google as becoming very big & scary. Google seems to think they still have the reputation of old, as sort of the underdog rebel. I don't think they are even seen as a rebel company anymore, I think a lot of people see them now as sell-outs, as just another opportunist company. In my conversations with programmer friends I'm not really seeing any love of Google there except a tiny few. Not saying I have enough programmer friends to make up solid statistics but the trend has definitely changed as used to be most of them really liked Google and thought they could do no wrong.

But of course we can all conjecture all we want, in the end we may all be surprised, something totally new & game changing could come in overnight & take all by surprise. As long as it is better for technology as a whole I'm all for it. Sorry but there isn't a soul on this earth who could convince me that is VP8.

then i guess you disapprove of practically every single software company, group, etc. basically anyone with a project.
the difference is you are free to fork the code and go your own way anytime you like. you can do this with webm, android, chromium, chrome os and many more projects out there.

It is certainly good for people to improve upon code, but code forks is one of the reasons open-source can be so frustrating. It's hard to build a quality product when there is no solidity or uniformity to it, it's what has killed any hope of Linux being a viable alternative for Windows. It's hard enough for programmers to want to develop cross-platform for 2 stable OSes like Windows & Microsoft. Throw Linux in the mix & not only may you have to have code changes to cover multiple distributions but then you might get some wild code changes in a version of Ubuntu or Fedora that requires drastic changes to your software. Re-coding is time & money, no one wants to waste their time & money for promise of little return unless they just like coding it for fun. Add into it that Linux users typically are techy types & they almost never want to pay for apps that they use so there is almost no place for paid apps. The Android store is a perfect example of this. Even though Android has been a big seller there are tons of free advertising apps but not many paid apps.

Isn't it funny that Google is so eager to chastise Apple for not supporting flash but instead pushing HTML5, yet Google is essentially doing the same exact thing by removing support for H.264 & pushing their own WebM. Google are a bunch of flaming hypocrites, and I have lost all respect for them as a company. Only a year ago I was rooting for them to do something amazing with Android & Chrome, it's a sad day when I actually like them less than Microsoft.

they do not have the say of everyone. like almost all projects they are controlled by members. 354 members i think. and that governing body has not pleased everyone either. read about complaints.

people are using the word 'open' like there is some magical place where everyone gets a say. that doesn't exist.

i cannot find 'open standard' with a universally agreed definition. But most do seem to lean towards 'royalty free' other wise they just say 'standard'.

I misspoke but ... that doesn't address my concern about Google being the end all say all when it comes to WebM. That's why I think they should give it to the w3c. HTML5 having the input of 354 relevant interested parties is much more than we can say for WebM.

Certain posters here, defending Google's actions, appear to have a seriously mistaken notion of what both 'open standard' and the 'open web' actually mean. In neither case is free a necessary or sufficient condition for openness. 'Open' in both cases means not controlled by a single company or cartel of companies. It doesn't mean that all software used on the Web must be free, it means that it must be free from the control of those who would pervert it to their own ends or for their own profit.

H.264 meets this criteria of openness and freedom. It is an official public standard, arrived at by consensus, freely available to anyone to license (and largely royalty free). WebM simply does not meet the criteria of openness in any way. Despite being superficially free, it is not, and likely never will be an official standard as Google has announced their intent to maintain tight control over it, and, thus, cannot, in any way, be considered an open technology.

Betraying net neutrality was an attack on an open Web. Trying to take control of video with their own proprietary (yes, it's free, but it's also proprietary) format is yet another attack. The manipulation of search results for profit is an attack on an open Web. Leveraging the popularity of their search service to push people into other Google services (which receive top search rankings) is an attack on an open Web. Android, in the hands of carriers has become an attack on an open Web.

How many assaults on the open Web are the FOSS advocates willing to tolerate simply because Google wraps them in feel-good speak about openness and freedom. At exactly what point are they willing to stand up and say, "This isn't right." Where do they draw the line?

Frankly, I'm not sure that anyone who didn't realize that, "Do no evil," was an empty slogan after the attack on net neutrality will ever see that Google is a problem. There was a case where they spit in the face of anyone who had ever supported them because they thought the company stood for something noble. So, maybe it isn't so surprising that those who stuck with them through the hatchet job on net neutrality are both defending them now and don't see anything rotten in WebM.

The wikipedia article is clear: there are very different meanings about what is and what is not an "open standard".
Both W3C and ISO define standards.
Standard may be patent-encumbered (as MP3, AAC, GIF) or royalty free (as PNG).

W3C: standard must be royalty-free
ISO: standard may be royalty-encumbered

I never mind h264 was a royalty-free standard.

But h264 is an ISO standard as a matter of facts.

WebM, on the contrary, is royalty-free but is not a standard (e.g. his improvements rely on Google alone, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by insike

Holy shit! You didn't even read the abstract, where they clearly use the term "royalty-free"?

So you are just offensive.
I have read all w3c policy. they don't define what an open standard is. They define what a w3c standard is.
W3C never use words "open-standard". W3C states that submitted technology needs to be royalty-free.
Google hasn't submitted WebM to W3C. And if MPEG-LA sues Google or whoever else on WebM, WebM becomes royalty-encumbered and therefore not W3C compliant.

Google can change WebM specifications at any time for whatever reason or no reason at all; no other can do that. Google and only google owns IP of contributors and may distribute it. This is not openness, is just royalty-free.

Quote:

WebM is an open-source project sponsored by Google and others. Google gave out an irrevocable unlimited license for WebM. They have made sure they can never make any sorts of claims about patents or anything like that against WebM. They can never take ownership again.

But they only decide what is WebM, and how to improve it.
Apple tomorrow may use webm container to encode with a better codec than VP8? No.
Who say this? W3C? No.
Google said.
Not WebM project, Google.

Really? Which ones? What formats? Because at the moment H.264 and Flash pretty much cover it.

Quote:

They can keep using Flash while the transition to WebM is still going on. But it will be in their interest to support native video in browsers. And they can just re-encode to WebM instead of h264.

I see. You actually have no idea what your'e talking about, do you?

Quote:

That would be quite silly. Video on the web today is basically Flash. If you don't support Flash, you are not going to keep your users.

And there you go. Somehow you can simultaneously make this argument (as Google does) while pretending that the huge H.264 presence, not just on the web but in devices, formats and hardware acceleration just doesn't matter.

Quote:

No, the bullshit here is entirely yours. H264 is incompatible with the open web, and WebM is not proprietary. I know you hate Google and desperately want to defend Apple, but stop the lies now, please.

What are you, fucking 12? Just chanting some phrases you've apparently heard but not understood isn't an argument, and the your the biggest fan boy in the room. Welcome to my ignore list.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

While I do agree with the general premise behind this article, in fact I even agree with the title. I thought this would be the first Dilger post that I'd support, but it's another that's derailed by facts.

Firefox does not hold 30% share, nor has it ever. About a year ago, at its height, Firefox had somewhere between 25% and 26%; it has not hit 25% since.

Internet Explorer still holds around 70%. Webkit, holds much closer to 100% (mobile Firefox, Opera, and Internet Explorer each have under 1%) while mobile Safari is hovering in the upper 70s to 80s.

Aside from all this, does Apple Insider do any sort of fact checking? Often Dilger posts, while thorough, have facts glaringly wrong.